Oh, for crying out loud, we have started overdoing it. Well, in my eyes at least. She's not being rude or hateful for expressing her opinion. She saw something she didn't like and she used her vocal cords to express how she felt. Big deal. Her opinion hurt him, but that isn't enough to deem her opinion/way_of_expressing_herself "rude". Maybye a bit inconsiderate, but it isn't her job to take Squig's feelings into account.

And this is in no way misandry. Mosandry is a general hate towards men, not an expression of one's preferences towards a specific man...or pig.

On the other hand , somewhere inside this thread I read that

Quote:

This is similar, in that Squig's body is not something for Glasses-Lady to comment on, but it's not wide-spread enough to be considered misandry, even though the gender-flipped version is wide-spread enough to be considered misogyny.

I have to disagree here. Again, misandry and misoginy characterise an action that is hateful towards a specific gender. However, said hate is an attribute that each individual action has in and of itself. Whether or not an action is hateful or not is completely unrelated to how often said action takes place.

If I walked by a dude lecherously reading porn in the middle of a park, I'd say eww too.

THIS. Why is this even an argument? It's gross because he's reading porn in public. "Ew" is entirely acceptable here.

I think we all agree that she has every right to think he's "ew," but that saying it out loud where he can hear her is rude.

Well, I think it's rude that he's reading porn in the middle of the public park. Ew is totally acceptable here. If I saw a dude watching porn in the computer library at school I'd say ew too. Loudly. And then I'd get a librarian to kick him out. Poor Beth can't do that in a park. Her gender is being objectified right in front of her in a public place. "Ew" is a mild response.

I think people are still focusing too much on the fact that Squig is crying and less about why he's crying.

Xanthe isn't collecting tears because she loves to see people who are upset. She's collecting tears because Squig thinks that this is what misandry looks like. Again, I can understand Squig being upset, but he has not been "misandried."

Geareye wrote:

On the other hand , somewhere inside this thread I read that

Quote:

This is similar, in that Squig's body is not something for Glasses-Lady to comment on, but it's not wide-spread enough to be considered misandry, even though the gender-flipped version is wide-spread enough to be considered misogyny.

I have to disagree here. Again, misandry and misoginy characterise an action that is hateful towards a specific gender. However, said hate is an attribute that each individual action has in and of itself. Whether or not an action is hateful or not is completely unrelated to how often said action takes place.

That was me, and it may be an issue of wording. What I meant to say was more that... sexism-towards-women is a legitimate thing because it is wide-spread, while sexism-toward-men is less legitimate because it's not as wide-spread (in the simple case of street harassment; sexism-toward-men is rampant in other ways, which I listed before).

So like, it's possible for someone to be sexist by believing something about one sex or by doing a sexist thing, but that doesn't mean that the act is wide-spead misogyny/misandry. The patriarchy is not involved in one individual's actions, but in the majority's actions and feelings as a whole.

Was that better?

NobodySpecial wrote:

Remember, kids, objectifying the sex you enjoy most is something best done in private.

Funny thing, if hypocritical "dudebro tears" were no longer a thing, then feminism will have won, and the crusading bikes of justice would no longer be needed, thus no longer needing dudebro tears. If the dudebros would just stop whining and get over themselves, they would, (get this,) stop fueling the crusade. Dun-dun-dunnnnnnnnnnn.

And, gracious, are some people -really- reading into this some primary message against "female" hypocrisy? I don't even. The lack of self-awareness there is kind of astounding. The lack of attention to detail in the comic itself is astounding. One character. ONE character made a mono-syllabic rude comment when she was grossed out by Squig in the park, (with plenty of indication that it was at least -also- behavior related,) and suddenly y'all are, "See, see, feminists bad! Ug!"

Because one female character wasn't nice, you jump to the conclusion that it proves that feminists are bad bad hypocrites.

You judge and condemn an entire population of women (in this comic) based on the single action of a single woman (in this comic.)

YOU are the reason "why feminism," ya tadpole.

Don't like the movement? Stop fueling it. Stop giving it reason to exist.

And maybe save some of your "hypocrite!" outrage, if you've still got so much to spare, for the fact that Squig, who was just happily looking at a porn rag, is suddenly reduced to -tears- and feels the need to announce his important man-pain to the world, (and he, himself classifies the pain as male with his own "misandry" comment,) because he -maybe- got sort-of-objectified -once- by a woman who, by all indication, has had to put up with that kind of bullcrap all her life.

She was rude. No argument there. She was.

But feminism isn't the joke in this one, no matter how much you really, really want it to be.

sexism-towards-women is a legitimate thing because it is wide-spread, while sexism-toward-men is less legitimate because it's not as wide-spread

Whether or not sexism-towards-gender is legitimate or not is irrelevant to how often it takes place. Each action is analyseable in and of itself. Of course, sexism towards women is a far more widespread problem than towards men, but that doesn't make sexism-towards-men any less legitimate.

Valerie wrote:

So like, it's possible for someone to be sexist by believing something about one sex or by doing a sexist thing, but that doesn't mean that the act is wide-spead misogyny/misandry. The patriarchy is not involved in one individual's actions, but in the majority's actions and feelings as a whole.

Was that better?

Almost. Patriarchy doesn't have the "copyright" of enforcing sexism. Sexism can be done outside of "the_patriarchal_sexism_norm". Of course, since an action doesn't take place in the majority, it isn't an act of wide-spread misoginy/misandry. However, it is stil a sexist act of misoginy/misandry, even though it doesn't make it in the Top 10 of sexist actions.

And again, so no misunderstandings arise, I repeat, I don't consider Beth's actions in this strip to be misandric/sexist in any way.

I also don't think that a vehicle powered by suffering is a good metaphor, really. I mean, in these cases it happens that Xanthe's just passing by and collecting them, but the implication is that such suffering is desirable

This is my point! If Tat wants us to believe the sisterhood are the good guys why does he have them drive vehicles literally powered by suffering?

sexism-towards-women is a legitimate thing because it is wide-spread, while sexism-toward-men is less legitimate because it's not as wide-spread

Whether or not sexism-towards-gender is legitimate or not is irrelevant to how often it takes place. Each action is analyseable in and of itself. Of course, sexism towards women is a far more widespread problem than towards men, but that doesn't make sexism-towards-men any less legitimate.

Valerie wrote:

So like, it's possible for someone to be sexist by believing something about one sex or by doing a sexist thing, but that doesn't mean that the act is wide-spead misogyny/misandry. The patriarchy is not involved in one individual's actions, but in the majority's actions and feelings as a whole.

Was that better?

Almost. Patriarchy doesn't have the "copyright" of enforcing sexism. Sexism can be done outside of "the_patriarchal_sexism_norm". Of course, since an action doesn't take place in the majority, it isn't an act of wide-spread misoginy/misandry. However, it is stil a sexist act of misoginy/misandry, even though it doesn't make it in the Top 10 of sexist actions.

And again, so no misunderstandings arise, I repeat, I don't consider Beth's actions in this strip to be misandric/sexist in any way.

Okay, I think we're more-or-less on the same page. I just don't know the correct words to use, I think._________________Men and patriarchy aren't interchangeable.

This is my point! If Tat wants us to believe the sisterhood are the good guys why does he have them drive vehicles literally powered by suffering?

They are not powered by suffering. They are powered by stupidity. Remember "dudebro tears", not "tears". In this case, Squig is crying for an idiotic reason, hence the machine runs.

If Squig got...uhm, let's say terminal bacon-disease and cried over it and Xanthe collected those tears and tried to put them in the vehicle, I have a very strong feeling that the bike would project a holographic message of "Hey, you! Don't be a bitch."

Of course, so no misunderstandings arise, nothing I've seen about Xanthe's behaviour so far show her capable of such an act.

I also don't think that a vehicle powered by suffering is a good metaphor, really. I mean, in these cases it happens that Xanthe's just passing by and collecting them, but the implication is that such suffering is desirable

This is my point! If Tat wants us to believe the sisterhood are the good guys why does he have them drive vehicles literally powered by suffering?

Read Rune's post, a couple above yours. Rune articulated it better than I ever could have._________________Men and patriarchy aren't interchangeable.

Also the fact she keeps collecting tears is one of the biggest reasons I dislike the whole sisterhood thing. When you start collecting tears you automatically go into the villain column for me

Could you explain why?

Or is this another, "I hate that they are usually right, so I must find something to twist around and demonize them with" attempt?

They did explain why-they stated that due to a book they read (in which a morally reprehensible character collects tears for his own use/amusement), the act of gathering another's tears for one's own personal use and/or enjoyment is rather linked to such horrible behaviors in his/her mind.

They explained it like *three posts* after the one you're complaining about.

SA_Penguin said that, not Maswartz. Different people.

Or are they? *conspiracy eyebrow waggle*

Ah damnit I missed that. That's what I get for popping in on low sleep and before I've had coffee.

Yinello beat me to it.

Also, I didn't complain. I asked two questions.

Last edited by lol on Mon Apr 29, 2013 4:08 pm; edited 2 times in total

This is not misandry in any shape or form. If we really want to compare it to a social issue it'd be objectification.

Which at the same time only applies if she was disgusted by Squig because she didn't find him sexually desirable. On the other hand, I think that she knew enough about his personality to be disgusted by him as an individual.

...I still don't like the analogy a lot. Even though it's... let's say unjustified suffering, the trike is powered by the tears.

I also don't think that a vehicle powered by suffering is a good metaphor, really. I mean, in these cases it happens that Xanthe's just passing by and collecting them, but the implication is that such suffering is desirable

This is my point! If Tat wants us to believe the sisterhood are the good guys why does he have them drive vehicles literally powered by suffering?

i'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that you wouldn't see them as the good guys no matter what he did because you fundamentally don't want to, which is why you've gone on this bizarre hermeneutical cocaine binge to batter and beat the comic until its blood-gargling gasps sound kind of like what you want it to be saying, so this objection is pretty much bullshit to begin with.

sometimes you take the strip literally. sometimes you take the strip metaphorically. sometimes you take the strip like you are all honest to goodness brainfucked. the only consistent thing about these cracked out interpretations of Sinfest that you MRAs constantly vomit up is that somehow the sisterhood is evil and therefore Tat is clearly a self-hating man who has shamefully submitted to the slavering hordes of feminazis who want to steal our penises.

I also don't think that a vehicle powered by suffering is a good metaphor, really. I mean, in these cases it happens that Xanthe's just passing by and collecting them, but the implication is that such suffering is desirable

This is my point! If Tat wants us to believe the sisterhood are the good guys why does he have them drive vehicles literally powered by suffering?

Because he wants to see you whine in the forums._________________[Stripeypants has enabled lurk mode.]